If it's radioactive enough to be a problem I would imagine it's easily detectable, considering that there are solid state sensors that can detect as little as 1 nSv/h of radiation and are apparently sensitive enough to be sometimes triggered by bananas.
If it's so radioactively inert that it can't be detected, then is it really a problem?

That's the reason they want to become a bank... Every time you make a transaction via a card, the banks take a chunk of that transaction (there's 3 middle men, your bank, the payment processor (Visa/MC) and the merchants bank all taking a cut) and Paypal knows that 1. the banks are minting serious coin from it and 2. most people aren't even aware it's happening so they'll keep paying.

Up until now the cost of compliance with regulations has made it to prohibitive for Paypal to become a bank... However now those regulations can just be ignored with a sufficient donation to El Presidente, they don't have to change or even have their shady business practices examined.

A lot of those regulations govern how you can access your money, how much liquidity the bank must hold and many other important things. So you're not just looking at paying more and less transparent fees... but also will be putting your money at risk if Paypal ends up having to pull the plug because they didn't comply with the regs... and you can tell it's going to be shady because they haven't tried to become a bank here in the UK where it's actually pretty easy if you're planning on being a legitimate bank (see: "challenger banks").

I forgot to mention that although it is possible to set some content rating based restrictions on some sited, there isn't any browser level standard. I think ideally what you would want is a way you could set your browser to be in "PG" mode for example, and then all websites (or content on websites) would be filterable accordingly.

Of course some websites might not choose to apply ratings to their content, or would apply inappropriate ratings to the content, but search engines could quickly down rate mis-rated content so it doesn't turn up in searches.
  It also goes without saying that the content filtering should be completely at the control of the individual user, with parents being responsible for setting appropriate filter levels for their kids, but only having to do it at the browser level, not each individual possible site their kid might visit.

I would love it if there was some kind of mirror site for YouTube that would convert all the long video tutorial type videos into well formatted text with appropriate illustrations extracted from the video where necessary.
scanning the transcript sometimes helps, but it's not in a very easy to read format.

It's especially frustrating when I want to see how to do something or other in say, Unreal Engine, and nearly all resources available are YouTube videos instead of reasonable documentation or written tutorials.
Even playing the video at double speed to scan for the meat of what I want only goes so far to reducing this problem.

Of course it would be far better if there was just good documentation and example, but that's probably wishing for too much.

While it's true that you can't keep kids from seeing content that mabey isn't appropriate, social media companies haven't exactly done themselves any favours by failing to have any kind of rating system for their content.

I think a far better solution would be for content to be rated, with controls in place so rating filters could be applied, similar to how tv has ratings for content, and in some cases has the ability to set a parental lock for some content.

For sites like youtube, which has so much good educational content, as well as a lot of stuff that mabey you don't want your 12 year old kids to see, it would be far better than an outright ban if you could set a filter to only show say, G or PG rated content, and you could be sure your kids weren't going to be exposed to clips of people getting blown up in a war or something.
This might mean that all content would have to be rated "Unrated" until it was reviewed and rated by either a human or sufficiently accurate AI bot, but this should be something that be increasingly possible to do.
For comments, it might be be necessary to disable them, or similarly have them get rated in real time by a bot.

if only we had a word for adaptation like this, like Evolving.

230 prevents sites from being prosecuted. So, right now, they do b all moderation of any kind (except to eliminate speech for the other side).

Remove 230 and sites become liable for most of the abuses. Those sites don't have anything like the pockets of those abusing them. The sites have two options - risk a lot of lawsuits (as they're softer targets) or become "private" (which avoids any liability as nobody who would be bothered would be bothered spending money on them). Both of these deal with the issue - the first by getting rid of the abusers, the second by getting rid of the easily-swayed.

USENET predates 230.
Slashdot predates 230.
Hell, back then we also had Kuro5hin and Technocrat.

Post-230, we have X and Facebook trying to out-extreme each other, rampant fraud, corruption on an unimaginable scale, etc etc.

What has 230 ever done for us? (And I'm pretty sure we already had roads and aqueducts...)

I'd disagree.

Multiple examples of fraudulent coercion in elections, multiple examples of American plutocrats attempting to trigger armed insurrections in European nations, multiple "free speech" spaces that are "free speech" only if you're on the side that they support, and multiple suicides from cyberharassment, doxing, and swatting, along with a few murder-by-swatting events.

But very very very little evidence of any actual benefits. With a SNR that would look great on a punk album but is terrible for actually trying to get anything done, there is absolutely no meaningful evidence anyone has actually benefitted. Hell, take Slashdot. Has SNR gone up or down since this law? Slashdot is a lot older than 230 and I can tell you for a fact that SNR has dropped. That is NOT a benefit.

I wish I could say I'm surprised.

However, this has been a consistent pattern that goes back to the 1930s and I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you corected that to the 1830s. Companies know that you make the most money by selling to both sides.

This will be great for Haiku, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD installs, there's not the remotest possibility there'll be binaries for these. Not because the software couldn't be ported, but because the sorts of people politicians hire to write software would never be able to figure out the installer.

>>EV don't even help climate change because of tire particulate

what's the CO2e number for tire particulate

The Swiss aren't exactly an industrial powerhouse, nor scientific. The largest sectors employing more Swiss are the banking, finance, trading and insurance sectors. Chemicals and pharmacuticals are their main physical exports, which means they're pretty much competing with most of Europe. So local universities will not struggle to meet demand and there's a load of British/German/French institutions they could use as well, also remember that they're smack bang in the middle of western Europe with open borders, so already a lot of people work in Geneva but live in France. A commute from Germany to Zurich wouldn't be difficult either.

That being said, even though Switzerland is a very static country, it would still be a mistake.

The only reason anyone knows about them is that the BBC had an article about them this morning.

I suspect it's very much a circle jerk like the British Sandwich Awards (called the Sammies, I'm not making it up) and at best a well paying job for a mid-level commedian-slash-light-entertainer to host.

Gaming in general has always struggled to get any kind of gaming centric event on the social map, E3 before it collapsed and maybe PAX but even that seems passe now so the best we can hope for is a mention in a TV and Film award ceremony suich as the games category in the BAFTAs.

FWIW, I think Clair Obscur cleaned up.